os_notification

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation with limited scope. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning 'native notification systems' but not detailing platform-specific behaviors, permissions needed, or notification persistence. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity, 2 parameters with full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks output information (no output schema) and doesn't explain what happens after sending (e.g., notification display behavior), leaving some gaps for a notification tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or usage tips for 'title' defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Send OS notifications') and resource ('using native notification systems'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'insert_text' or 'read_symbol', which are unrelated notification functions, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what contexts it's appropriate. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other notification methods.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.